This entry was posted on July 19, 2011 at 6:46 am and is filed under Blog Announcements . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
106 Responses to “Murdochs Testify Before Parliament: Your Reactions”
Saw the siren on Drudge and thought Murdoch got beat down. Come to find out there was really no ‘attack’ at all but some comedian ‘attempted’ to smash him in the face with a pie, eh? Call me shocked its being blown out of proportion across the world.
That said, I surely don’t condone anyone being ‘pied’ but apparently they do that a lot over there in the UK. Perhaps its on par with throwing your shoes at somebody?
The prevailing righty attitude on Twitter is “Americans don’t care, yay Rupert.” I understand differentiating between Fox News, NewsCorp, and News International, but the lack of compassion for how severe and disgusting this hacking mess is, is sad.
Why is it that it’s always people who are perceived as conservative that get pies, foam, blood, etc. thrown on/at them? My theory explains much of the behavior from the left and it’s that they never fully mature. But, I could be wrong.
Well Joe it just confirms for us Righties that you Lefties are just a bunch of spoiled kids..I mean throwing pies at people?….what was the point of that?….Well atleast it was just a pie but it makes you wonder had it been a more serous attack would it make any differance or would the MSM be just as gleeful as they are over this?….Remember how they cheered the guy who threw a shoe at Bush not caring how serious the fact was that the President could have been got to like that was?
But I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN….it shows that this is all about hating Murdoch and FOX news and very little to do about the Victims.
Plus it would be nice if the MSM could show as much interest in the Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in Mexico as they do this story.
But I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN….it shows that this is all about hating Murdoch and FOX news and very little to do about the Victims.
Plus it would be nice if the MSM could show as much interest in the Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in Mexico as they do this story.
I’d just like to say to every screeching Fox apologist who accuse the left of not caring about murder victims. F***. Off.
“Fast and furious” has been covered repeatedly on all networks. You’re as dumb as a box of screeching partisan rocks.
Brit Hume provided an absolutely fair and succinct commentary on the hacking scandal, then Bret set him up to claim “surprise” at the amount of coverage the story has received in America by “gleeful” competitors. I told you the ‘victim’ line started at F&F, and massively expanded on on Fox News Watch, would continue this week. It only took ’til Tuesday for it to show up on Special Report. Brit used to be a journalist. He should be ashamed.
but the lack of compassion for how severe and disgusting this hacking mess is, is sad
What lack of compassion? I assume that whoever the disgusting scumbag was that erased those messages and gave the family false hope will be doing time. Beyond that, I don’t expect “attitudes” to be any different about this than about anything else.
Somehow “Tabloid reporters have resorted to bribery, private dicks, and other unethical practises to get scoops” doesn’t seem to be much of a newsflash to me.
Nice job of taking one sideways comment as a negation of an entire career, or whatever. They covered the hearings wall-to-wall, but aren’t supposed to note that their competitors might be slightly pleased about the whole thing. They have thus failed the ‘purity’ test. Yep,.
No, they can’t. Not while the scandal is still developing; not on the same day their boss threw up his hands and said, “I don’t know nothin, it’s not my fault”. The victimisers don’t get to claim victimisation, which they’ve been doing repeatedly since that horrendous F&F segment Friday. But of course this is the standard conservative “they’re all against us mantra”, and now even you are being sucked into it.
First it was not on the day they run an ad in the papers. Then it’s not on the day Rupert testifies. Next it will be not on the day that it gets mentioned by someone on MSNBC. Puh-leeze.
how in the heck someone can say all of this is because of HATERS of fox and murdoch..i dont know. Murdoch and his entities broke the law and he needs to be held accountable. The allegations weren’t made up the are FACT and murdoch doesn’t want to take responsibility for them. If yall murdoch groupies want to be mad at someone be mad at murdoch. he’s the head honcho here. he should and yall should face the music!
Have you lost your mind? We’re talking about murder and war victims. The “company” is using a newspaper – the Sunday WSJ editorial was full hysteria – and a news channel to put the company’s “quit picking on us” defense in the mouths of journalists and commentators. You don’t see a problem with that?
Yes, I don’t understand about murder and war victims. Check. I haven’t condemned the idiocy on Fox and Friends. Check. I haven’t read the WSJ editorial. Check.
I’m not buying your ‘hysteria’ about some comments on Special Report. That calls my entire character into question. Check.
If you’re going to buy into Fox News using their employess to defend their boss – a boss who’s got serious issues around accepting responsibility for this mess – I have a problem with it.
I was wrong about him facetiously claiming “full responsibility” without taking any. He didn’t even claim it. Yet he has his idiots all over television and the WSJ b/tching about the coverage. And the Fox Cult plays along. It’s obscene.
I’ve been watching CNN most of the day, because I assumed their coverage would be tougher. Been watching CNN a lot lately for various other reasons, Cult-member though I am.
“Accepting responsibility” has more than one definition. In the meanings that truly matter, and insofar as we know to date, both Mr. Murdoch and NewsCorp have accepted responsibility. They have demonstrated this responsibility by carrying through with promised cooperation with investigators (as attested to by Scotland Yard and several MPs), by issuing personal and apparent heartfelt apologies to the victims, and by shutting down – not selling – the offending publication – 168 years old and the biggest-selling English language newspaper in the world – within days of learning about the hacking.
“At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure — nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress.” That is also accepting responsibility.
Because he claims a) No knowledge while this was occurring and, b) That neither he nor the company he heads condones such criminal methods, it would be asinine to expect him to accept personal responsibility for the criminal actions of an employee or subcontractor of one of his companies.
joe, until there is evidence that Murdoch gave the orders to hack phones then I’m not going to bring out the rope yet. Until then this shows poor management on Murdoch’s part and that is all. Let’s not turn this into another Casey Anthony.
Part of “accepting responsibility” is not turning supposedly journalistic outlets into your own f***ing PR firm. It utterly astounds me that this is not painfully obvious to you guys.
No, I’m sorry, a consistent PR line of attack against “accusers” during a criminal investigation is outside the bounds of what we generally consider opinion programming on a cable news channel, or editorial page content in a newspaper.
If I worked for MSNBC as an opinion host or commentator; the CEO of Comcast was head of a company involved in a criminal investigation; and I said he/Comcast/MSNBC are being gleefully attacked by conservative media because they hate him/them/us, that wouldn’t fly with a single conservative in this country.
When the “opinion” is support for your own boss in crisis, it cannot be trusted as independent opinion. You’ve either been told to do it; know you’re expected to; or think it’s a wise career move. I can’t believe you need this explained.
Stephen Hayes works for The Weekly Standard just as yesterday’s <Special Report panellist, Rick Klein, works for ABC News. And, as has been asserted repeatedly by all of FNC’s hosts and every guest panellist asked, as well as by WSJ editors, nobody ever tells them what they should or should not opine about.
That anyone commenting is also compensated by FNC is for you to take under consideration. I think it would be far worse if Rupoert Murdoch called up Roger Ailes and told him, “I don’t want anyone on your network commenting about this. You got that?”
It doesn’t have to fly with you, with me, or with anyone. It’s an opinion, that is all. Are you that naive to think Murdoch is so desperate that he himself is going to call on opinion commentators to defend him? Really? You’re right in your scenario it wouldn’t fly with me but more importantly I wouldn’t care, and in this case neither should you.
I don’t care who Stephen Hayes or Rick Klein works for..there should be a standard at Fox that if you’re on their screen, you’re forbidden from defending the guy who owns the network you’re yapping on. It’s unseemly. Not only is it not forbidden, it’s clearly being encouraged by somebody in that organization because FNW’s Saturday tirade has been repeated on F&F and Special Report this week.
It’s to be expected, which is why I was waiting for it. I knew FNC would find some way to make themselves the victim of their own company hacking a dead girl’s phone. Saw it coming a mile away.
I think… that people who are paid to comment should comment unless they are personally privy to specific information that is subject of an investigation. We adults can determine for ourselves whether those opinions are merely “defending the boss” or if they’re legitimate opinions. Given that the opinions expressed on this topic appear to be consistent with those expressed on totally unrelated matters, I don’t see a problem. I’ll decide later whether or not I agree with any of them.
I think…complaining about how liberals are covering your boss while his holdings are being investigated for hacking the phones of murder and war victims is beneath contempt, and I’m quite sure if the tables were turned, the right would be in an uproar.
Uproar? I doubt it. We’d continue to negatively critique opinions we disagreed with, of course, and we’d continue to point out the ridiculousness of Matthews, et. al.
Geraldo: “It was painful to watch my boss of bosses get popped with that cream pie as he was being grilled by the British parliamentarians investigating that country’s malignant phone hacking scandal.”
Painful? Really? Now there’s an FNCr’s opinion we could have done without.
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
I do NOT understand you people. The line I’ve drawn is clear, simple, and irrefutable: You cover the story. You do NOT complain about how others are covering your own internal criminal matter. Period. You’ve got Rush, Drudge, Hotair, Newsbusters, Levin…the line of righty media screamers there to defend you is endless. But FNC couldn’t help themselves. Always a victim..
- doddering -
I’ve seen several recent appearances by Rupert. He showed no evidence of being as out of it as he presented today. “I’m old, slow, and have no idea what’s going on in my companies” is horseshyte. He may not have known the extent of the scandal, but he either had some idea, or made it clear he didn’t want to know how they did what they did. But no, he’s SHOCKED and SADDENED. Please.
I Don’t Care what MSNBC would ”get away with”. You may have noted that I try not to comment on things that I do not watch, and I don’t much give a crap what other people say about it. If you want to approach FNC with your finely-tuned ‘offense’ antenna, that’s your issue.
The problem with that example is, that’s not how it would go. MSNBCers would be in whatshisname’s office, demanding answers, and thanking him for generating the criticism they were getting. Only Fox would handle an internal scandal by circling the wagons and b/tching about the rest of the media. The fact that I expected it actually disturbs me. I should be more shocked, but they’re wearing me down.
Sorry joe if I am not as eager to crucify FNC and News Corp for the failings of one paper. Everything you said is either circumstantial or your own personal hate disguised as analysis. Apparently to you this is all a giant conspiracy for Murdoch to rule the world. It’s laughable.
They’re covering the story, while occasionally making comments that are being totally blown out of proportion. I’m ‘minimizing’ nothing more than your interpretation of it.
Thanks for generalizing my comments, Jacky. I think these things: Rupert is a tabloid hack who dresses his female anchors like high-end hookers; runs a tabloid version of news media that is now responsible for hacking into the phones of murder and war victims; and has a cable news channel currently in the business of complaining about their own victimisation.
You people support that vile pice of s**t because he’s on your side. Not a good enough reason.
And you don’t listen to what’s actually being said, in favor of some nutty bullsh|t about ‘supporting’, I assume, Murdoch. NO ONE has said that. You’ve created it out of nothing. You don’t listen. You don’t want to.
-No one would have questioned Great Grandmothers faking it-
Not even Great Grandfathers?
-finely-tuned ‘offense’ antennae-
Indeed
-and have no idea what’s going on in my companies-
Why would you think he’d know the details of what goes on in one of those companies? Rupert Murdoch was not the CEO of NoTW. He’s not even the CEO of the company that owned NoTW. He’s the CEO of the company that owns the company that owned NoTW.
I think ABC owns the Bay Area affiliate station. If one of its local reporters hacked somebody’s phone to get a story, would you think the Chairman of Walt Disney should have known?
And this NOTW-story is not, thus far, even connected to Fox, other than sharing a parent-company. You, like the rest of The Left have an unhidden interest in creating that connection, whether or not it actually exists. Good luck with that.
Laura of course he doesn’t. To him to offer any kind of thought that doesn’t echo the “Murdoch is a monster and everything he does is evil mantra” we are apart of some Fox cult and we are brainwashed. It’s an extremely overused talking point.
My thoughts on these various subjects are not exactly hidden. Nowhere in any of it is “support” of Rupert Murdoch, or anything done at that newspaper. It’s a complete figment. I just won’t go nuts over some defensive opinions given during otherwise thorough coverage..of which some occurred while watching CNN.
So, lets see if we have this down…..the major stockholder of company that owns/runs 40 newspapers, 40 TV-Radio stations and many other entities all over the world….
….doesn’t know some a**hat punk reporters that hacked into some poorly designed and/or open phone systems that everyone knows the pin codes. Wow….amazing….I’m sure we would all have known just exactly what all 50,000 of our employees are doing.
Murdoch has been a vile hack for as long as I can remember, long before FNC. My complaint is about the companywide victimisation line Fox has adopted around this story. You guys don’t have a problem with it, which reinforces everything I know about the tenuous conservative moral compass. It’s the same as it ever was.
Murdoch has been a vile hack for as long as I can remember
Members of The First Church of Unions despise Rupert Murdoch because it was at his drawing-of-the-line that the newspaper printing unions in the UK began busting themselves. His competitors, on the other hand, rather admire him because his efforts of decades ago has resulted in there still being quite a profitable newspaper industry over there.
We’ll find out soon enough whether the old man still maintains his core principles that have benefited thousands of employees over the years or if he’s the one who initiated the illegal activities in a quest for ever higher stock values.
Mo Rocca (CBS’s Sunday Morning & NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me):
“If it was ever in doubt that we’ll soon be China’s bitch, Wendi Deng put those doubts to rest today”
While you’re on Mediaite, read An American Watches The NewsCorp Hearings In London. Farah Bostic writes an honest piece that reads differently depending upon the perspective from which you see things.
I’d post the link if I wadn’t so bloody lucking fazy.
I’d just like to say to every screeching Fox apologist who accuse the left of not caring about murder victims. F***. Off.
You recognize that you’ve said as much yourself, right? You said the other day that you care about this because you hate Murdoch and always have hated Murdoch. You don’t care about the actual victims… or at least not as much as you care about hoping this brings down Murdoch.
Face facts. We have.
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Part of “accepting responsibility” is not turning supposedly journalistic outlets into your own f***ing PR firm. It utterly astounds me that this is not painfully obvious to you guys.
Like I said on Mediaite (before that place got really stupid with Disqus), it doesn’t matter what FNC says or does, the haters will think it’s wrong. If they attack Murdoch, the story will be how “FNC is cracking under the pressure;” if they defend him, it’s “All a conspiracy, they’re just defending their boss.” It’s a lose-lose for those who have already made up their minds.
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm
When the “opinion” is support for your own boss in crisis, it cannot be trusted as independent opinion. You’ve either been told to do it; know you’re expected to; or think it’s a wise career move. I can’t believe you need this explained.
See?!
Now this is very interesting because the other day the left-wing bloggers (particularly on Mediaite) were saying just the opposite to attack FNC… saying that the opinion guys hadn’t reported on the story yet, and that was a sign of bias. So no reporting is bad. Reporting their opinion is bad. The is only one opinion that is good… and that’s the left-wing version of events (facts or no facts).
Joe, do you not see how small of a box you’re trying to put reality into? Are you this blind?
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
Perhaps you missed when O’Reilly was attacking Immelt and GE. Didn’t KO and others defend them, and attack O’Reilly and FNC for doing so?
*Yawn*
jackyboy Says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Laura of course he doesn’t. To him to offer any kind of thought that doesn’t echo the “Murdoch is a monster and everything he does is evil mantra” we are apart of some Fox cult and we are brainwashed. It’s an extremely overused talking point.
Hey, remember like 6-8 months ago when INB said Joe had lost it, and had become almost completely irrational, and just another member of the angry-left (the group of people who are perpetually angry at someone or something they perceive to be right of them)?
Boy… wasn’t he right?!
He’ll accept pats on the back, tactful head nods, and personal checks… as he does his “I told you so” dance.
You recognize that you’ve said as much yourself, right? You said the other day that you care about this because you hate Murdoch and always have hated Murdoch.
I never said anything like that, you blog-hopping moron. I SAID I care no matter WHO did it. I SAID I’ve hated Murdoch since he blighted the landscape with Current Affair, back when I was a conservative. Two separate thoughts, idiot.
Perhaps you missed when O’Reilly was attacking Immelt and GE. Didn’t KO and others defend them, and attack O’Reilly and FNC for doing so?
Perhaps you missed that this wasn’t about Immelt and GE being under criminal investigation for HACKING A DEAD GIRL’S PHONE. My example was a direct correlation, not one of any number of standard media feuds about nothing between a couple of blowhards.
I never said anything like that, you blog-hopping moron. I SAID I care no matter WHO did it. I SAID I’ve hated Murdoch since he blighted the landscape with Current Affair, back when I was a conservative. Two separate thoughts, idiot.
Well clearly you’d never let your irrational hatred of Murdoch color your opinion of him in this scandal. Noooo… never.
But please, throw more ad hominem my way. It bolsters my argument for you going off the deep end, and means I don’t have to spend as much time pointing it out.
joeremi Says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:35 am
Perhaps you missed that this wasn’t about Immelt and GE being under criminal investigation for HACKING A DEAD GIRL’S PHONE. My example was a direct correlation, not one of any number of standard media feuds about nothing between a couple of blowhards.
Versus
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
“While their boss was in trouble.” Sorry… you were not making a direct correlation. In fact, you rather clearly toned it down to make your point. I pointed out it’s fallacy, and now you’re trying to re-write what you said. Again… deeeeeep end.
“While their boss was in trouble” was clearly in the context of placing Comcast in Murdoch’s current shoes. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can understand that. Troll.
Joe…one of the primary reasons BOR went after GE was because of their trade deals with Iran which has been excluded as part of a boycott supported by both Republican & Democrat administrations.
At this point, we do not have all of the facts regarding Murdoch & NewsCorp yet we do have all of the facts regarding GE’s blatant selling of stuff to a tyrannical regime.
That was probably never, in reality. You certainly could have been a Republican and perhaps even agreed with the logic of many conservative arguments, but that does not make one “conservative”.
The difference between a conservative and liberal mind is not in the opinions that each hold but in the thought processes that each use to formulate those opinions. Both are valid and both are a necessary component for advancing human society.
“Can we all just agree that anyone who says “Thrill up my leg” is about as clever as Sean Hannity?”
No, we can’t. I like it when it gets thrown back in Matthews’ face. He has to live with that for the rest of his life. It really is almost beyond belief that a journalist/reporter/talking head would say that on air. I wish more people would throw the line “it’s my job as a journalist to make sure Obama succeeds” back in his face too.
But, I’m biased. I think Matthews is a race-baiting crank. If I were a lefty, I might just throw a pie in his face or something.
Evangelical Christian Reagan conservative. You don’t get to tell me what I was. Lots of people evolve from lib to conservative as they get older/richer. As I got older/richer, I did the opposite. It happens, people change.
“While their boss was in trouble” was clearly in the context of placing Comcast in Murdoch’s current shoes. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can understand that. Troll.
At some point, don’t you worry that the hypocrisy of complaining about someone else not taking responsibility, while you continually try to doge responsibility of your own will consume you?
If that’s what you meant, it was not clear. But frankly, I still think you’re just trying to spin your way out of a logical mess. It’s easier than saying, “I was wrong,” you’ll just change the story.
It’s easier than saying, “I was wrong,” you’ll just change the story.
You’re saying this to a person who straight-up said “I’m sorry” last night..no excuses. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I’ve been absolutely consistent on this topic. Employees of Rupert Murdoch should not be using his news platforms to lash out at other media during this crisis. It’s not news; it’s not opinion; it’s PR for the boss. Period.
Employees of Rupert Murdoch should not be using his news platforms to lash out at other media during this crisis. It’s not news; it’s not opinion; it’s PR for the boss. Period.
So where did you stand last week when the left was screaming that FNC didn’t report it, and needed to report it across the board and on the opinion programs?
Your generic “left” is useless to me. I don’t “stand” with an amorphous blob. FNC handled the actual facts of the story appropriately. It’s when they got defensive about others’ reporting that I got upset.
When your boss gets embroiled in a criminal investigation of hacking phones of MURDERED PEOPLE, you lose the moral ground to be crying that The Bad People are yelling at you. But O’Reilly thinks it’s a “witch hunt”. Every idiot at that network should shut up and wait for the story to run its course. If it’s ever revealed that 9/11 victims were hacked, F&F and Fox News Watch and Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly are gonna wish they had taken my advice.
-When your boss gets embroiled in a criminal investigation-
Their boss, Roger Ailes, hasn’t been embroiled in squat regarding the hacking investigation. Neither Fox News nor WSJ is NoTW and there’s nothing at all wrong with them, within their commentaries, pushing back against unsubstantiated inferences that they are involved. And if American subsidiaries of NewsCorp are ever implicated in hacking the phones of 9/11 victims, the commentaries of those you mentioned will rightly change dramatically and be the least of their problems anyway. Hume and O’Reilly, most likely, would quit.
———— Conservative evangelicalism is not conservativism, although a small minority of evangelicals are also conservative. While Evangelicals often share some of the same opinions as those of conservatives, their method of formulating those opinions are actually more similar to how liberals tend to think, and their affection for President Reagan was along their religion-based ideology.
The media coverage has centered on Murdoch’s company’s involvement in the scandal. No one is claiming Fox News has anything to do with it. FNC is using “‘The liberal media’s hate for Fox News” to claim “piling on” of their boss. It’s WRONG to make such a wideranging out-of-thin-air accusation to fight “our enemies”.
Are opponents of that wretched scumbag happy to see him finally have to suck on his tabloid proclivities? Sure. Is FNC in a position to b/tch about it? No.
J$ pointed out a couple days ago, with pictorial proof, that a competing news channel’s coverage of the NoTW scandal was accompanied by a graphic of FNC’s logo.
Yes, the use of the logo was dicey; something to be quibbled about by media NOT named Fox News; but I SAW the segment. FNC was not implicated in the scandal. It is obviously the holding in America most viewers associate with Rupert Murdoch, and what makes the story fascinating for them is that “that guy who owns the most popular cable news channel” has a nasty preoblem in Britian.
It doesn’t change my thesis. The “liberal media” doesn’t have to be perfect on this for me to insist that FNC stay out of it until the crisis is over. Like I said, there’s plenty of conservative media available to yell at Martin Bashir.
That ship has sailed, anyway. The “MSM” has decided Rupert is a sweet old man with a kickass wife. Game over.
I guess Joe’s point is, if you’re getting beat up… don’t fight back, until you’re absolutely sure you can win. Otherwise, if you fight back and then lose, you’ll look silly.
Yes, a good plan. I hope he takes it to heart, because he appears to be losing this argument… and I guess by his logic, should knock it off.
^ There was a point when you thought you were better than just using the same personal attacks over and over again.
And then you gave up on that, and now are just the same as every other moron and idiot with a keyboard and internet access. “You disagree with me, you’re stupid and I hate you.”
You’re getting very boring. Very angry, but very boring.
I’m not here to entertain you, or put up with idiots who purposely refuse to follow the base logic of an argument; misstate my views; and move the subject around. You’re an argumentavive True Believer who doesn’t give a damn what anyone else has to say, you just wait for your turn to tell The Truth. You’re not a conservative..you’re just another faceless, mindless, dittohead cult member.
July 19, 2011 at 9:36 am
Who are the people directly behind the Murdochs?
July 19, 2011 at 9:41 am
Two of them: Joel Klein (I think Murdoch’s appointed investigator) and Wendi Murdoch
July 19, 2011 at 10:07 am
“Licit”. Ooh, it passes spell-check. I had no idea.
July 19, 2011 at 10:18 am
Terry Moran News Corp stock jumps after man attacks 80-year-old Rupert Murdoch with plate full of foam. #backfire
July 19, 2011 at 10:44 am
Actually, I think her name is Wendi Deng… as in “Hello, Wendi… DANG Woman!”
She really smacked that attacker.
July 19, 2011 at 10:48 am
So, here it is. They attacked an old man, and activated Ninja Trophy Wife. I think Coburn needs to give her a call.
July 19, 2011 at 11:12 am
Saw the siren on Drudge and thought Murdoch got beat down. Come to find out there was really no ‘attack’ at all but some comedian ‘attempted’ to smash him in the face with a pie, eh? Call me shocked its being blown out of proportion across the world.
That said, I surely don’t condone anyone being ‘pied’ but apparently they do that a lot over there in the UK. Perhaps its on par with throwing your shoes at somebody?
July 19, 2011 at 11:36 am
Ninja Chick is his WIFE? I figured she was a young legal intern..
July 19, 2011 at 12:27 pm
The prevailing righty attitude on Twitter is “Americans don’t care, yay Rupert.” I understand differentiating between Fox News, NewsCorp, and News International, but the lack of compassion for how severe and disgusting this hacking mess is, is sad.
July 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Security with Benefits..
July 19, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“People” don’t care about GE’s business, either. Doesn’t stop some from covering it.
July 19, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Why is it that it’s always people who are perceived as conservative that get pies, foam, blood, etc. thrown on/at them? My theory explains much of the behavior from the left and it’s that they never fully mature. But, I could be wrong.
July 19, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I’d like to thank “pie thrower” for making that the story for righties to cling to today. Yay Rupert!
July 19, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Well Joe it just confirms for us Righties that you Lefties are just a bunch of spoiled kids..I mean throwing pies at people?….what was the point of that?….Well atleast it was just a pie but it makes you wonder had it been a more serous attack would it make any differance or would the MSM be just as gleeful as they are over this?….Remember how they cheered the guy who threw a shoe at Bush not caring how serious the fact was that the President could have been got to like that was?
But I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN….it shows that this is all about hating Murdoch and FOX news and very little to do about the Victims.
Plus it would be nice if the MSM could show as much interest in the Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in Mexico as they do this story.
July 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Mini-Olbermann Contessa Brewer at it as usual:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/07/19/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-pie-attack-murdoch-encapsulates-what-british-
July 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm
But I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN….it shows that this is all about hating Murdoch and FOX news and very little to do about the Victims.
Plus it would be nice if the MSM could show as much interest in the Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in Mexico as they do this story.
I’d just like to say to every screeching Fox apologist who accuse the left of not caring about murder victims. F***. Off.
“Fast and furious” has been covered repeatedly on all networks. You’re as dumb as a box of screeching partisan rocks.
July 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm
So Murdoch’s defense amounts to “I have no idea what goes on around here, I take full responsibility, I’m not leaving”. Well..that was helpful..
July 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Brit Hume provided an absolutely fair and succinct commentary on the hacking scandal, then Bret set him up to claim “surprise” at the amount of coverage the story has received in America by “gleeful” competitors. I told you the ‘victim’ line started at F&F, and massively expanded on on Fox News Watch, would continue this week. It only took ’til Tuesday for it to show up on Special Report. Brit used to be a journalist. He should be ashamed.
July 19, 2011 at 3:26 pm
but the lack of compassion for how severe and disgusting this hacking mess is, is sad
What lack of compassion? I assume that whoever the disgusting scumbag was that erased those messages and gave the family false hope will be doing time. Beyond that, I don’t expect “attitudes” to be any different about this than about anything else.
Somehow “Tabloid reporters have resorted to bribery, private dicks, and other unethical practises to get scoops” doesn’t seem to be much of a newsflash to me.
July 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm
They are gleeful, and Brit is about as surprised as he is when the sun comes up in the morning. His ‘journalistic’ cred is just fine.
July 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Nice job of both of you skipping my central moral points. I’m wasting my time.
July 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Nice job of taking one sideways comment as a negation of an entire career, or whatever. They covered the hearings wall-to-wall, but aren’t supposed to note that their competitors might be slightly pleased about the whole thing. They have thus failed the ‘purity’ test. Yep,.
July 19, 2011 at 3:45 pm
No, they can’t. Not while the scandal is still developing; not on the same day their boss threw up his hands and said, “I don’t know nothin, it’s not my fault”. The victimisers don’t get to claim victimisation, which they’ve been doing repeatedly since that horrendous F&F segment Friday. But of course this is the standard conservative “they’re all against us mantra”, and now even you are being sucked into it.
July 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm
First it was not on the day they run an ad in the papers. Then it’s not on the day Rupert testifies. Next it will be not on the day that it gets mentioned by someone on MSNBC. Puh-leeze.
July 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Oh give me a break. Dead peoples’ phones were hacked, and it’s still under investigation. Wtf is wrong with you people?
July 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Ooh, now Stephen Hayes is complaining about “the overwhelming American media coverage”. They do’t even try to hide the company through-line.
July 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm
how in the heck someone can say all of this is because of HATERS of fox and murdoch..i dont know. Murdoch and his entities broke the law and he needs to be held accountable. The allegations weren’t made up the are FACT and murdoch doesn’t want to take responsibility for them. If yall murdoch groupies want to be mad at someone be mad at murdoch. he’s the head honcho here. he should and yall should face the music!
July 19, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Shep: “From Rupert Murdoch, apology..but not responsibility.” This is gonna be interesting..
July 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Ooh, wow, no ‘company line’. Heavens.
July 19, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Murdoch ‘broke the law’? Have you got the rope already tied to the tree?
July 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm
harry is a loon. Just let him flap.
July 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Ooh, wow, no ‘company line’. Heavens.
Have you lost your mind? We’re talking about murder and war victims. The “company” is using a newspaper – the Sunday WSJ editorial was full hysteria – and a news channel to put the company’s “quit picking on us” defense in the mouths of journalists and commentators. You don’t see a problem with that?
July 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Yes, I don’t understand about murder and war victims. Check. I haven’t condemned the idiocy on Fox and Friends. Check. I haven’t read the WSJ editorial. Check.
I’m not buying your ‘hysteria’ about some comments on Special Report. That calls my entire character into question. Check.
July 19, 2011 at 4:22 pm
If you’re going to buy into Fox News using their employess to defend their boss – a boss who’s got serious issues around accepting responsibility for this mess – I have a problem with it.
I was wrong about him facetiously claiming “full responsibility” without taking any. He didn’t even claim it. Yet he has his idiots all over television and the WSJ b/tching about the coverage. And the Fox Cult plays along. It’s obscene.
July 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm
I’ve been watching CNN most of the day, because I assumed their coverage would be tougher. Been watching CNN a lot lately for various other reasons, Cult-member though I am.
July 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
““Fast and furious” has been covered repeatedly on all networks.”
Yep, doing a 20-second wire read right before the 4th commercial break is the same as giving it the Casey Anthony treatment.
July 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
“Accepting responsibility” has more than one definition. In the meanings that truly matter, and insofar as we know to date, both Mr. Murdoch and NewsCorp have accepted responsibility. They have demonstrated this responsibility by carrying through with promised cooperation with investigators (as attested to by Scotland Yard and several MPs), by issuing personal and apparent heartfelt apologies to the victims, and by shutting down – not selling – the offending publication – 168 years old and the biggest-selling English language newspaper in the world – within days of learning about the hacking.
“At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure — nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress.” That is also accepting responsibility.
Because he claims a) No knowledge while this was occurring and, b) That neither he nor the company he heads condones such criminal methods, it would be asinine to expect him to accept personal responsibility for the criminal actions of an employee or subcontractor of one of his companies.
July 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm
joe, until there is evidence that Murdoch gave the orders to hack phones then I’m not going to bring out the rope yet. Until then this shows poor management on Murdoch’s part and that is all. Let’s not turn this into another Casey Anthony.
July 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Part of “accepting responsibility” is not turning supposedly journalistic outlets into your own f***ing PR firm. It utterly astounds me that this is not painfully obvious to you guys.
July 19, 2011 at 5:49 pm
^The only evidence to that claim was that disaster Fox and Friends segment, but that is all.
July 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I’ve listed every example of “that claim” I’ve come across. If you’re not going to follow my argument, don’t argue it.
July 19, 2011 at 5:58 pm
^ Opinion programme panellists opine and newspaper editorial pages editorialise. The Fox & Friends segment, however, was crap.
July 19, 2011 at 6:03 pm
^So in a nutshell, people with an opinion giving an opinion. It’s still Murdoch’s fault though, he loves to brainwash,
July 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm
No, I’m sorry, a consistent PR line of attack against “accusers” during a criminal investigation is outside the bounds of what we generally consider opinion programming on a cable news channel, or editorial page content in a newspaper.
If I worked for MSNBC as an opinion host or commentator; the CEO of Comcast was head of a company involved in a criminal investigation; and I said he/Comcast/MSNBC are being gleefully attacked by conservative media because they hate him/them/us, that wouldn’t fly with a single conservative in this country.
When the “opinion” is support for your own boss in crisis, it cannot be trusted as independent opinion. You’ve either been told to do it; know you’re expected to; or think it’s a wise career move. I can’t believe you need this explained.
July 19, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Stephen Hayes works for The Weekly Standard just as yesterday’s <Special Report panellist, Rick Klein, works for ABC News. And, as has been asserted repeatedly by all of FNC’s hosts and every guest panellist asked, as well as by WSJ editors, nobody ever tells them what they should or should not opine about.
That anyone commenting is also compensated by FNC is for you to take under consideration. I think it would be far worse if Rupoert Murdoch called up Roger Ailes and told him, “I don’t want anyone on your network commenting about this. You got that?”
July 19, 2011 at 6:24 pm
It doesn’t have to fly with you, with me, or with anyone. It’s an opinion, that is all. Are you that naive to think Murdoch is so desperate that he himself is going to call on opinion commentators to defend him? Really? You’re right in your scenario it wouldn’t fly with me but more importantly I wouldn’t care, and in this case neither should you.
July 19, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I don’t care who Stephen Hayes or Rick Klein works for..there should be a standard at Fox that if you’re on their screen, you’re forbidden from defending the guy who owns the network you’re yapping on. It’s unseemly. Not only is it not forbidden, it’s clearly being encouraged by somebody in that organization because FNW’s Saturday tirade has been repeated on F&F and Special Report this week.
It’s to be expected, which is why I was waiting for it. I knew FNC would find some way to make themselves the victim of their own company hacking a dead girl’s phone. Saw it coming a mile away.
July 19, 2011 at 6:41 pm
I think… that people who are paid to comment should comment unless they are personally privy to specific information that is subject of an investigation. We adults can determine for ourselves whether those opinions are merely “defending the boss” or if they’re legitimate opinions. Given that the opinions expressed on this topic appear to be consistent with those expressed on totally unrelated matters, I don’t see a problem. I’ll decide later whether or not I agree with any of them.
July 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I think…complaining about how liberals are covering your boss while his holdings are being investigated for hacking the phones of murder and war victims is beneath contempt, and I’m quite sure if the tables were turned, the right would be in an uproar.
July 19, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I think… the usual suspects would be in an uproar. Those of us who count..wouldn’t give a crap.
July 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Also beneath contempt..that pathetic “doddering old man” performance today.
July 19, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Uproar? I doubt it. We’d continue to negatively critique opinions we disagreed with, of course, and we’d continue to point out the ridiculousness of Matthews, et. al.
Geraldo: “It was painful to watch my boss of bosses get popped with that cream pie as he was being grilled by the British parliamentarians investigating that country’s malignant phone hacking scandal.”
Painful? Really? Now there’s an FNCr’s opinion we could have done without.
July 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm
– doddering –
Remember when 80 used to be old? Like, really old? I had Great Grandmothers, and no one would have questioned that they were faking it.
July 19, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Geraldo and ‘subtlety’ don’t frequent the same locations.
July 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
I do NOT understand you people. The line I’ve drawn is clear, simple, and irrefutable: You cover the story. You do NOT complain about how others are covering your own internal criminal matter. Period. You’ve got Rush, Drudge, Hotair, Newsbusters, Levin…the line of righty media screamers there to defend you is endless. But FNC couldn’t help themselves. Always a victim..
- doddering -
I’ve seen several recent appearances by Rupert. He showed no evidence of being as out of it as he presented today. “I’m old, slow, and have no idea what’s going on in my companies” is horseshyte. He may not have known the extent of the scandal, but he either had some idea, or made it clear he didn’t want to know how they did what they did. But no, he’s SHOCKED and SADDENED. Please.
July 19, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I Don’t Care what MSNBC would ”get away with”. You may have noted that I try not to comment on things that I do not watch, and I don’t much give a crap what other people say about it. If you want to approach FNC with your finely-tuned ‘offense’ antenna, that’s your issue.
July 19, 2011 at 7:26 pm
The problem with that example is, that’s not how it would go. MSNBCers would be in whatshisname’s office, demanding answers, and thanking him for generating the criticism they were getting. Only Fox would handle an internal scandal by circling the wagons and b/tching about the rest of the media. The fact that I expected it actually disturbs me. I should be more shocked, but they’re wearing me down.
July 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm
your finely-tuned ‘offense’ antenna,
That’s extremely insulting. What they’re doing is disgusting, and you shouldn’t be minimizing it.
July 19, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Sorry joe if I am not as eager to crucify FNC and News Corp for the failings of one paper. Everything you said is either circumstantial or your own personal hate disguised as analysis. Apparently to you this is all a giant conspiracy for Murdoch to rule the world. It’s laughable.
July 19, 2011 at 7:34 pm
They’re covering the story, while occasionally making comments that are being totally blown out of proportion. I’m ‘minimizing’ nothing more than your interpretation of it.
July 19, 2011 at 7:39 pm
– MSNBCers would be in whatshisname’s office, demanding answers, and thanking him for generating the criticism they were getting. –
Truth, meet power. Or something.
July 19, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Thanks for generalizing my comments, Jacky. I think these things: Rupert is a tabloid hack who dresses his female anchors like high-end hookers; runs a tabloid version of news media that is now responsible for hacking into the phones of murder and war victims; and has a cable news channel currently in the business of complaining about their own victimisation.
You people support that vile pice of s**t because he’s on your side. Not a good enough reason.
July 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
And you don’t listen to what’s actually being said, in favor of some nutty bullsh|t about ‘supporting’, I assume, Murdoch. NO ONE has said that. You’ve created it out of nothing. You don’t listen. You don’t want to.
July 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm
-No one would have questioned Great Grandmothers faking it-
Not even Great Grandfathers?
-finely-tuned ‘offense’ antennae-
Indeed
-and have no idea what’s going on in my companies-
Why would you think he’d know the details of what goes on in one of those companies? Rupert Murdoch was not the CEO of NoTW. He’s not even the CEO of the company that owned NoTW. He’s the CEO of the company that owns the company that owned NoTW.
I think ABC owns the Bay Area affiliate station. If one of its local reporters hacked somebody’s phone to get a story, would you think the Chairman of Walt Disney should have known?
July 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
And this NOTW-story is not, thus far, even connected to Fox, other than sharing a parent-company. You, like the rest of The Left have an unhidden interest in creating that connection, whether or not it actually exists. Good luck with that.
July 19, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Laura of course he doesn’t. To him to offer any kind of thought that doesn’t echo the “Murdoch is a monster and everything he does is evil mantra” we are apart of some Fox cult and we are brainwashed. It’s an extremely overused talking point.
July 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm
My thoughts on these various subjects are not exactly hidden. Nowhere in any of it is “support” of Rupert Murdoch, or anything done at that newspaper. It’s a complete figment. I just won’t go nuts over some defensive opinions given during otherwise thorough coverage..of which some occurred while watching CNN.
July 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
So, lets see if we have this down…..the major stockholder of company that owns/runs 40 newspapers, 40 TV-Radio stations and many other entities all over the world….
….doesn’t know some a**hat punk reporters that hacked into some poorly designed and/or open phone systems that everyone knows the pin codes. Wow….amazing….I’m sure we would all have known just exactly what all 50,000 of our employees are doing.
July 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Murdoch has been a vile hack for as long as I can remember, long before FNC. My complaint is about the companywide victimisation line Fox has adopted around this story. You guys don’t have a problem with it, which reinforces everything I know about the tenuous conservative moral compass. It’s the same as it ever was.
July 19, 2011 at 8:06 pm
– same as it ever was –
Screw off.
July 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Oh nice way to generalize it to all conservatives. I echo similar thoughts as laura.
July 19, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“Victimisation” – bunch of crap.
tenuous moral compass
That’s pathetic.
July 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm
tenuous moral compass
Not my most brilliant statement. I’m sorry. I go now.
July 19, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Murdoch has been a vile hack for as long as I can remember
Members of The First Church of Unions despise Rupert Murdoch because it was at his drawing-of-the-line that the newspaper printing unions in the UK began busting themselves. His competitors, on the other hand, rather admire him because his efforts of decades ago has resulted in there still being quite a profitable newspaper industry over there.
We’ll find out soon enough whether the old man still maintains his core principles that have benefited thousands of employees over the years or if he’s the one who initiated the illegal activities in a quest for ever higher stock values.
Mo Rocca (CBS’s Sunday Morning & NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me):
“If it was ever in doubt that we’ll soon be China’s bitch, Wendi Deng put those doubts to rest today”
July 19, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Love the headlines. News Corpse.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-skewers-fox-news-for-belittling-epic-murdoch-scandal/
July 19, 2011 at 10:33 pm
While you’re on Mediaite, read An American Watches The NewsCorp Hearings In London. Farah Bostic writes an honest piece that reads differently depending upon the perspective from which you see things.
I’d post the link if I wadn’t so bloody lucking fazy.
July 19, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Writes the headline, can’t copy/paste. Ookayy.
July 19, 2011 at 11:11 pm
I type very fast, chickie. Besides, bite me.
July 19, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Right-clicking is such a chore. I remember trying to teach Mominlaw how to do it.
http://www.mediaite.com/print/an-american-watches-the-newscorp-hearings-in-london/
July 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm
i cannot take Richard Quest seriously. I keep waiting for George Jefferson to walk on his back.
July 20, 2011 at 12:44 am
i cannot take Richard Quest seriously.
This is what comes to mind every time I see him on air:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-quest-cnn-reporte_n_97466.html
July 20, 2011 at 6:59 am
Why can’t we all just agree … that Chris Matthews is a jerk?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/explosive-encounter-gop-rep-walsh-yells-at-chris-matthews-obama-doesnt-send-a-thrill-up-my-leg/
July 20, 2011 at 7:50 am
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I’d just like to say to every screeching Fox apologist who accuse the left of not caring about murder victims. F***. Off.
You recognize that you’ve said as much yourself, right? You said the other day that you care about this because you hate Murdoch and always have hated Murdoch. You don’t care about the actual victims… or at least not as much as you care about hoping this brings down Murdoch.
Face facts. We have.
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Part of “accepting responsibility” is not turning supposedly journalistic outlets into your own f***ing PR firm. It utterly astounds me that this is not painfully obvious to you guys.
Like I said on Mediaite (before that place got really stupid with Disqus), it doesn’t matter what FNC says or does, the haters will think it’s wrong. If they attack Murdoch, the story will be how “FNC is cracking under the pressure;” if they defend him, it’s “All a conspiracy, they’re just defending their boss.” It’s a lose-lose for those who have already made up their minds.
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm
When the “opinion” is support for your own boss in crisis, it cannot be trusted as independent opinion. You’ve either been told to do it; know you’re expected to; or think it’s a wise career move. I can’t believe you need this explained.
See?!
Now this is very interesting because the other day the left-wing bloggers (particularly on Mediaite) were saying just the opposite to attack FNC… saying that the opinion guys hadn’t reported on the story yet, and that was a sign of bias. So no reporting is bad. Reporting their opinion is bad. The is only one opinion that is good… and that’s the left-wing version of events (facts or no facts).
Joe, do you not see how small of a box you’re trying to put reality into? Are you this blind?
joeremi Says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
Perhaps you missed when O’Reilly was attacking Immelt and GE. Didn’t KO and others defend them, and attack O’Reilly and FNC for doing so?
*Yawn*
jackyboy Says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Laura of course he doesn’t. To him to offer any kind of thought that doesn’t echo the “Murdoch is a monster and everything he does is evil mantra” we are apart of some Fox cult and we are brainwashed. It’s an extremely overused talking point.
Hey, remember like 6-8 months ago when INB said Joe had lost it, and had become almost completely irrational, and just another member of the angry-left (the group of people who are perpetually angry at someone or something they perceive to be right of them)?
Boy… wasn’t he right?!
He’ll accept pats on the back, tactful head nods, and personal checks… as he does his “I told you so” dance.
July 20, 2011 at 8:22 am
You recognize that you’ve said as much yourself, right? You said the other day that you care about this because you hate Murdoch and always have hated Murdoch.
I never said anything like that, you blog-hopping moron. I SAID I care no matter WHO did it. I SAID I’ve hated Murdoch since he blighted the landscape with Current Affair, back when I was a conservative. Two separate thoughts, idiot.
July 20, 2011 at 8:22 am
Can we all just agree that anyone who says “Thrill up my leg” is about as clever as Sean Hannity?
July 20, 2011 at 8:35 am
Perhaps you missed when O’Reilly was attacking Immelt and GE. Didn’t KO and others defend them, and attack O’Reilly and FNC for doing so?
Perhaps you missed that this wasn’t about Immelt and GE being under criminal investigation for HACKING A DEAD GIRL’S PHONE. My example was a direct correlation, not one of any number of standard media feuds about nothing between a couple of blowhards.
July 20, 2011 at 8:36 am
Can we all just agree that saying “Hey Chris” fifty times is not a good debate tactic?
July 20, 2011 at 9:06 am
joeremi Says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:22 am
I never said anything like that, you blog-hopping moron. I SAID I care no matter WHO did it. I SAID I’ve hated Murdoch since he blighted the landscape with Current Affair, back when I was a conservative. Two separate thoughts, idiot.
Well clearly you’d never let your irrational hatred of Murdoch color your opinion of him in this scandal. Noooo… never.
But please, throw more ad hominem my way. It bolsters my argument for you going off the deep end, and means I don’t have to spend as much time pointing it out.
joeremi Says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:35 am
Perhaps you missed that this wasn’t about Immelt and GE being under criminal investigation for HACKING A DEAD GIRL’S PHONE. My example was a direct correlation, not one of any number of standard media feuds about nothing between a couple of blowhards.
Versus
You think the MSNBC crew would get away with firing back at the right for criticizing them while their boss was in trouble? We’d hear all day about the liberals playing “victim” while they were victimising.
“While their boss was in trouble.” Sorry… you were not making a direct correlation. In fact, you rather clearly toned it down to make your point. I pointed out it’s fallacy, and now you’re trying to re-write what you said. Again… deeeeeep end.
July 20, 2011 at 9:12 am
“While their boss was in trouble” was clearly in the context of placing Comcast in Murdoch’s current shoes. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can understand that. Troll.
July 20, 2011 at 9:26 am
Joe…one of the primary reasons BOR went after GE was because of their trade deals with Iran which has been excluded as part of a boycott supported by both Republican & Democrat administrations.
At this point, we do not have all of the facts regarding Murdoch & NewsCorp yet we do have all of the facts regarding GE’s blatant selling of stuff to a tyrannical regime.
July 20, 2011 at 9:32 am
back when I was a conservative
That was probably never, in reality. You certainly could have been a Republican and perhaps even agreed with the logic of many conservative arguments, but that does not make one “conservative”.
The difference between a conservative and liberal mind is not in the opinions that each hold but in the thought processes that each use to formulate those opinions. Both are valid and both are a necessary component for advancing human society.
July 20, 2011 at 9:36 am
“Can we all just agree that anyone who says “Thrill up my leg” is about as clever as Sean Hannity?”
No, we can’t. I like it when it gets thrown back in Matthews’ face. He has to live with that for the rest of his life. It really is almost beyond belief that a journalist/reporter/talking head would say that on air. I wish more people would throw the line “it’s my job as a journalist to make sure Obama succeeds” back in his face too.
But, I’m biased. I think Matthews is a race-baiting crank. If I were a lefty, I might just throw a pie in his face or something.
July 20, 2011 at 9:55 am
back when I was a conservative
Evangelical Christian Reagan conservative. You don’t get to tell me what I was. Lots of people evolve from lib to conservative as they get older/richer. As I got older/richer, I did the opposite. It happens, people change.
July 20, 2011 at 10:28 am
joeremi Says:
July 20, 2011 at 9:12 am
“While their boss was in trouble” was clearly in the context of placing Comcast in Murdoch’s current shoes. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can understand that. Troll.
At some point, don’t you worry that the hypocrisy of complaining about someone else not taking responsibility, while you continually try to doge responsibility of your own will consume you?
If that’s what you meant, it was not clear. But frankly, I still think you’re just trying to spin your way out of a logical mess. It’s easier than saying, “I was wrong,” you’ll just change the story.
July 20, 2011 at 10:57 am
It’s easier than saying, “I was wrong,” you’ll just change the story.
You’re saying this to a person who straight-up said “I’m sorry” last night..no excuses. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I’ve been absolutely consistent on this topic. Employees of Rupert Murdoch should not be using his news platforms to lash out at other media during this crisis. It’s not news; it’s not opinion; it’s PR for the boss. Period.
July 20, 2011 at 11:00 am
joeremi Says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:57 am
Employees of Rupert Murdoch should not be using his news platforms to lash out at other media during this crisis. It’s not news; it’s not opinion; it’s PR for the boss. Period.
So where did you stand last week when the left was screaming that FNC didn’t report it, and needed to report it across the board and on the opinion programs?
It’s a lose-lose… will you at least admit that?
July 20, 2011 at 11:12 am
Your generic “left” is useless to me. I don’t “stand” with an amorphous blob. FNC handled the actual facts of the story appropriately. It’s when they got defensive about others’ reporting that I got upset.
When your boss gets embroiled in a criminal investigation of hacking phones of MURDERED PEOPLE, you lose the moral ground to be crying that The Bad People are yelling at you. But O’Reilly thinks it’s a “witch hunt”. Every idiot at that network should shut up and wait for the story to run its course. If it’s ever revealed that 9/11 victims were hacked, F&F and Fox News Watch and Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly are gonna wish they had taken my advice.
July 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm
-When your boss gets embroiled in a criminal investigation-
Their boss, Roger Ailes, hasn’t been embroiled in squat regarding the hacking investigation. Neither Fox News nor WSJ is NoTW and there’s nothing at all wrong with them, within their commentaries, pushing back against unsubstantiated inferences that they are involved. And if American subsidiaries of NewsCorp are ever implicated in hacking the phones of 9/11 victims, the commentaries of those you mentioned will rightly change dramatically and be the least of their problems anyway. Hume and O’Reilly, most likely, would quit.
————
Conservative evangelicalism is not conservativism, although a small minority of evangelicals are also conservative. While Evangelicals often share some of the same opinions as those of conservatives, their method of formulating those opinions are actually more similar to how liberals tend to think, and their affection for President Reagan was along their religion-based ideology.
July 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm
The media coverage has centered on Murdoch’s company’s involvement in the scandal. No one is claiming Fox News has anything to do with it. FNC is using “‘The liberal media’s hate for Fox News” to claim “piling on” of their boss. It’s WRONG to make such a wideranging out-of-thin-air accusation to fight “our enemies”.
Are opponents of that wretched scumbag happy to see him finally have to suck on his tabloid proclivities? Sure. Is FNC in a position to b/tch about it? No.
July 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm
J$ pointed out a couple days ago, with pictorial proof, that a competing news channel’s coverage of the NoTW scandal was accompanied by a graphic of FNC’s logo.
July 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Yes, the use of the logo was dicey; something to be quibbled about by media NOT named Fox News; but I SAW the segment. FNC was not implicated in the scandal. It is obviously the holding in America most viewers associate with Rupert Murdoch, and what makes the story fascinating for them is that “that guy who owns the most popular cable news channel” has a nasty preoblem in Britian.
It doesn’t change my thesis. The “liberal media” doesn’t have to be perfect on this for me to insist that FNC stay out of it until the crisis is over. Like I said, there’s plenty of conservative media available to yell at Martin Bashir.
That ship has sailed, anyway. The “MSM” has decided Rupert is a sweet old man with a kickass wife. Game over.
July 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I guess Joe’s point is, if you’re getting beat up… don’t fight back, until you’re absolutely sure you can win. Otherwise, if you fight back and then lose, you’ll look silly.
Yes, a good plan. I hope he takes it to heart, because he appears to be losing this argument… and I guess by his logic, should knock it off.
July 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm
You have no f***ing clue what my point is. You’re either purposely ignoring it, or you’re just stupid. Your choice.
July 21, 2011 at 7:02 am
^ There was a point when you thought you were better than just using the same personal attacks over and over again.
And then you gave up on that, and now are just the same as every other moron and idiot with a keyboard and internet access. “You disagree with me, you’re stupid and I hate you.”
You’re getting very boring. Very angry, but very boring.
July 21, 2011 at 8:49 am
I’m not here to entertain you, or put up with idiots who purposely refuse to follow the base logic of an argument; misstate my views; and move the subject around. You’re an argumentavive True Believer who doesn’t give a damn what anyone else has to say, you just wait for your turn to tell The Truth. You’re not a conservative..you’re just another faceless, mindless, dittohead cult member.
November 10, 2011 at 5:07 am
silestone colors…
[...]Murdochs Testify Before Parliament: Your Reactions « Inside Cable News[...]…